Scanner Suggestions

I have some family negatives and photos that I want to capture digitally.
Most of the negatives are 35 mm. I would like to know what is the best
method to scan in
negatives? Are regular flat bed scanners with attachments on the lid for
negatives and slides any good, or should I consider getting a dedicated film
scanner? Any help provided is appreciated. Thank you.
Joe

On Nov 30, 1:27 am, "Joe" <jwnospamhorv...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I have some family negatives and photos that I want to capture digitally.
> Most of the negatives are 35 mm. I would like to know what is the best
> method to scan in
> negatives? Are regular flat bed scanners with attachments on the lid for
> negatives and slides any good, or should I consider getting a dedicated film
> scanner? Any help provided is appreciated. Thank you.
> Joe


Ist choice would be a dedicated film scanner, the Nikon LS5000 is
about the only one left you can purchase new. As for flatbeds (and
film scanners) you get waht you pay for. As prices get less, speed and
scan quality decreases. After the Nikon LS5000 I'd look at the Epson
V700 flatbed, the advantage with this scanner is that you can scan 24
negs. Quality is the best of any flatbed, but takes some tweking with
film holder heights to get the best results. This scanner is better
than most older film scanners and probably better than inexpensive
ones. I mostly scan slides with mine (12 max) and I find the manual
set up almost as quick as the auto scan and more acurate.

Tom

A film scanner is best; most flatbeds with adapters are pretty bad,
except for some Epson models (not cheap, however).

The best film scanners are the Nikon models with Digital ICE, from the
LS-2000 and up. hey can sometimes be had cheap (under $100) but will
likely both be incomplete and need service. Check E-Bay.


Joe wrote:
> I have some family negatives and photos that I want to capture
> digitally. Most of the negatives are 35 mm. I would like to know what
> is the best method to scan in
> negatives? Are regular flat bed scanners with attachments on the lid
> for negatives and slides any good, or should I consider getting a
> dedicated film scanner? Any help provided is appreciated. Thank you.
> Joe
>

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:27:44 -0800, "Joe"
<jwnospamhorvath@comcast.net> wrote:

>I have some family negatives and photos that I want to capture digitally.
>Most of the negatives are 35 mm. I would like to know what is the best
>method to scan in
>negatives? Are regular flat bed scanners with attachments on the lid for
>negatives and slides any good, or should I consider getting a dedicated film
>scanner? Any help provided is appreciated. Thank you.
>Joe


How many negatives are you planning on scanning? Also, how much
were you figuring on spending? If you have a lot of negatives and you
want the best possible scan, then like tomm42 and Barry Watzman said,
get a decent dedicated film scanner.
If you only have a handful of negatives, and you only want to get
a good scan of the negatives, then it wouldn't make sense to buy a
$1000 scanner, when a flatbed would suffice.

Talker

Do not discount the option of buying a used scanner (anywhere, including
E-Bay), using it, then reselling it (E-Bay). If you are careful, you
can at least break even, and might make money on the transaction.

Also consider services such as scancafe.com. And Sam's club does
relatively low quality scans (2MP) for 18 cents each ... maybe do that
as "insurance" before sending off your original images to a service like
scancafe (which uses Nikon scanners).

There are LOTS of ways to skin this cat.


Talker wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:27:44 -0800, "Joe"
> <jwnospamhorvath@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> I have some family negatives and photos that I want to capture digitally.
>> Most of the negatives are 35 mm. I would like to know what is the best
>> method to scan in
>> negatives? Are regular flat bed scanners with attachments on the lid for
>> negatives and slides any good, or should I consider getting a dedicated film
>> scanner? Any help provided is appreciated. Thank you.
>> Joe
>
>
> How many negatives are you planning on scanning? Also, how much
> were you figuring on spending? If you have a lot of negatives and you
> want the best possible scan, then like tomm42 and Barry Watzman said,
> get a decent dedicated film scanner.
> If you only have a handful of negatives, and you only want to get
> a good scan of the negatives, then it wouldn't make sense to buy a
> $1000 scanner, when a flatbed would suffice.
>
> Talker

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:49:41 -0500, Barry Watzman
<WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:

>Do not discount the option of buying a used scanner (anywhere, including
>E-Bay), using it, then reselling it (E-Bay). If you are careful, you
>can at least break even, and might make money on the transaction.
>
>Also consider services such as scancafe.com. And Sam's club does
>relatively low quality scans (2MP) for 18 cents each ... maybe do that
>as "insurance" before sending off your original images to a service like
>scancafe (which uses Nikon scanners).
>
>There are LOTS of ways to skin this cat.
>
>
Yes, buying a used one is a good option. I would think that it
would be better to follow your second suggestion and have someone else
scan them. It would be more cost efficient to do that if he doesn't
have a shoebox full of negatives. At 18˘ a piece, you'd get 5 scans
for a buck, and if he spent $200 to buy a used scanner, he could get
1111 negatives scanned instead. That's a lot of time and work to do
yourself.(I guess he'd recoup his money if he resold the scanner
though.)

Talker

Joe wrote:
> I have some family negatives and photos that I want to capture
> digitally. Most of the negatives are 35 mm. I would like to know what
> is the best method to scan in
> negatives? Are regular flat bed scanners with attachments on the lid
> for negatives and slides any good, or should I consider getting a
> dedicated film scanner? Any help provided is appreciated. Thank you.
> Joe
>

Google away on this group.

1) For high quality (archive) or larger prints a 4000 or higher dpi
dedicated file scanner

2) To make small prints ( 6 x 9 inches or smaller) or for screen
display, a flatbed with film capability should do okay.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

I guess that one can always argue that "more is better", but a 2,700 dpi
scan of a 35mm image gives a 10 megapixel result. I seriously question
going higher. Most images simply don't have any more meaningful detail
to give.

Alan Browne wrote:
> Joe wrote:
>> I have some family negatives and photos that I want to capture
>> digitally. Most of the negatives are 35 mm. I would like to know
>> what is the best method to scan in
>> negatives? Are regular flat bed scanners with attachments on the lid
>> for negatives and slides any good, or should I consider getting a
>> dedicated film scanner? Any help provided is appreciated. Thank you.
>> Joe
>>
>
> Google away on this group.
>
> 1) For high quality (archive) or larger prints a 4000 or higher dpi
> dedicated file scanner
>
> 2) To make small prints ( 6 x 9 inches or smaller) or for screen
> display, a flatbed with film capability should do okay.
>

Barry Watzman wrote:
> I guess that one can always argue that "more is better", but a 2,700 dpi
> scan of a 35mm image gives a 10 megapixel result. I seriously question
> going higher. Most images simply don't have any more meaningful detail
> to give.
>
Shoot decent lenses off a tripod on good film and expose properly and
they certainly do.

Don't top post.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

As I said, MOST [35mm] images simply don't have any more meaningful
detail to give [than 10 MP].

Alan Browne wrote:
> Barry Watzman wrote:
>> I guess that one can always argue that "more is better", but a 2,700
>> dpi scan of a 35mm image gives a 10 megapixel result. I seriously
>> question going higher. Most images simply don't have any more
>> meaningful detail to give.
>>
> Shoot decent lenses off a tripod on good film and expose properly and
> they certainly do.
>
> Don't top post.
>